PDA

View Full Version : Baku Olympiad 2016: New Zealand teams



heligan
25-08-2015, 07:45 AM
The New Zealand Chess Federation is inviting player applications to represent NZ teams at the 42nd Chess Olympiad to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan from the 17th to 30th September 2016. Applications must be made on the application form which can be returned by email to:
Hilton Bennett: hiltonb@wave.co.nz.
Alternatively it can be printed and returned by post to:
New Zealand Chess Federation, P.O. Box 216, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

The form can be downloaded from the NZCF Olympiad Page, which also has other useful information and will be updated regularly: http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/Olympiad2016/olympiad2016.html

Applications close on the 30th November 2015 and must be received, either by post or email, on or before this date. NZCF aims to complete the selection process as soon as possible after the 2016 NZ Congress, in order to give selected players maximum time to make travel arrangements and prepare themselves for the event. An Open and a Women's team will be selected, each with five players and two non-travelling reserves.

Unlike many federations NZCF does not have a specific activity rule requiring a minimum number of tournament games to be played before a player can be considered for selection. However, the federation wishes to remind players that tournament results and active participation in tournaments are important to the national selectors in establishing current playing form. Without recent activity it is difficult to establish if a player's rating is a reasonable indication of his/her current playing strength. Various tournaments are available to NZ-based Olympiad applicants leading up to the NZ Congress in Devonport in January, as well as club tournaments. The NZ Congress in particular is a focal point of national chess activity and provides an excellent opportunity for applicants to support their application through chess performance.

heligan
30-11-2015, 08:19 AM
Today is the final day for applications for the New Zealand Olympiad team...

ChrisBurns
11-12-2015, 12:17 PM
Any chance that the number of applicants can be revealed?

heligan
11-12-2015, 12:58 PM
Sorry, but applicants' names are not being released. Teams should be announced after mid-February.

ChrisBurns
11-12-2015, 10:54 PM
Sorry, but applicants' names are not being released. Teams should be announced after mid-February.

Thats why I asked for just the numbers.

heligan
12-12-2015, 07:06 AM
Hmm...I'm getting an idea for a fund-raising competition here! Submit your ideas of numbers of applicants for the Open and Women's teams, with a $100 donation to NZ Olympiad team costs. All correct answers will go into a hat and the winning ticket will get a roll-up chess board signed by Kasparov. (Only joking folks, but donations welcome all the same!)

ChrisBurns
12-12-2015, 03:43 PM
Just showing some interest.Did not know that that basic information is top secret. Other countries list the names of applicants so just asking for the numbers applying to judge interest is not too much to ask for.

slyall
12-12-2015, 09:33 PM
Just showing some interest.Did not know that that basic information is top secret. Other countries list the names of applicants so just asking for the numbers applying to judge interest is not too much to ask for.

Well in other countries they have lawsuits over selection, not sure we want that :(

I'm not sure the numbers applying are really meaningful, there are only 7 odd places so more than 10 applying for each team gets a bit meaningless. Anyone outside the top 25 applying for the Open team is going to have only a tiny chance of being selected.

The woman's team have the opposite problem, although I guess one way of looking it it would be to say if you are in the top 15 females in the country you stand are good chance if you apply :)

ChrisBurns
14-12-2015, 10:18 AM
Well in other countries they have lawsuits over selection, not sure we want that :(

I'm not sure the numbers applying are really meaningful, there are only 7 odd places so more than 10 applying for each team gets a bit meaningless. Anyone outside the top 25 applying for the Open team is going to have only a tiny chance of being selected.

The woman's team have the opposite problem, although I guess one way of looking it it would be to say if you are in the top 15 females in the country you stand are good chance if you apply :)

You just showed why the numbers of applicants has meaning. Hypothetically there could just be the exact number of applicants to positions so you would assume automatic selection. But let's say there were only 1 more applicant for a team than position then you would know your chances are quite good ( of course your rating would play a big part) so if you applied and knew what the situation was now then you could have more incentive to perform better between now and selection date, maybe enter the NZ champs if you were not that keen before and of course the opposite could happen if you knew that there were 15 applicants and you were most likely at the lower rated end of the spectrum then you could save your effort and expenses of chasing selection. For what is worth I have not nominated myself so don't have a horse in the race. The more information that is available to applicants is only a good thing.

heligan
14-12-2015, 10:30 AM
Applicants are welcome to ask questions (which should be addressed to Hilton Bennett, or myself).

The best way to guarantee a place in the Open team is to be the highest-placed New Zealand player in the NZ Open.

ER
14-12-2015, 11:12 AM
Well in other countries they have lawsuits over selection, not sure we want that :(

(...)

Such as??? :whistle::P jk of course! :)

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2015, 10:08 PM
The lawsuit in Australia's case was 15 years ago when we had a less developed system. It was a great nuisance for the ACF but it was very clearly lost by the suer and costs were awarded against him. In response to it we introduced a right of appeal and also a right for players to put a case to selectors on why they should be selected. I think there's always some risk a case could happen in just about any country; the important thing is to give players avenues to put their case thus making it less likely they will sue, and also of course to make sure you can win the case if it comes to that.

Tony Dowden
15-12-2015, 03:56 PM
Perhaps Elliott was making the point that unlike the Australian chess context lawsuits involving chess personalities are virtually unheard of in NZ Over the last 30 or so years I can only think of one incident vaguely approaching a lawsuit in NZ chess - and even then I'm not sure if lawyers have any involvement beyond giving advice to one or two parties.

jammo
15-12-2015, 05:38 PM
Well in other countries they have lawsuits over selection, not sure we want that :(

I'm not sure the numbers applying are really meaningful, there are only 7 odd places so more than 10 applying for each team gets a bit meaningless. Anyone outside the top 25 applying for the Open team is going to have only a tiny chance of being selected.

The woman's team have the opposite problem, although I guess one way of looking it it would be to say if you are in the top 15 females in the country you stand are good chance if you apply :)

I don't understand why the names of the applicants are a secret. The potential lawsuit argument does not stack up as the lawsuit is over the result of the selection, not over who, or how many, applied.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2015, 06:21 PM
Perhaps Elliott was making the point that unlike the Australian chess context lawsuits involving chess personalities are virtually unheard of in NZ Over the last 30 or so years I can only think of one incident vaguely approaching a lawsuit in NZ chess - and even then I'm not sure if lawyers have any involvement beyond giving advice to one or two parties.

Aside from the one selection case 15 years ago I'm not aware of any other truly chess-related lawsuits in Australia either.

ChrisBurns
15-12-2015, 09:25 PM
I don't understand why the names of the applicants are a secret. The potential lawsuit argument does not stack up as the lawsuit is over the result of the selection, not over who, or how many, applied.

I suppose one of the reasons is that applicants might count their chickens before they hatch and be very disappointed 😞 if they were overlooked. Also some applicants might only apply on the condition that it is kept confidential so by keeping it secret then the number of applicants is maximised. Another possibility is that the selectors don't want to be swayed by public opinion. There are good and bad reasons for releasing the names but I think that the good out weights the bad. I suppose the median ground is that the applicants can ask pertinent questions to the selectors to elicit more information. The whole lawsuit reason is a red herring and wont be a reason.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2015, 12:20 AM
Posts moved

Completely off-topic posts about the 2000 Australian court case have been moved to the Aus Chess history section. Those that are merely very tangential have been left here for now.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2015, 02:43 AM
Yes, Australia doesn't feel the need to keep the applicants secret, so why should NZ? ChessChat had polling about who would/should be selected from the known applicants, with no trouble of which I am aware.

Keong Ang
16-12-2015, 09:06 PM
It is the NZCF Council that decided not to reveal who had applied.
There are various reasons for not revealing and nobody supplied reasons to reveal. Could be said that nobody thought it necessary to reveal since all applicants have already had their application acknowledged. Exactly who is selected would be known shortly anyway.
Basically, it was not viewed as an issue since the Open and Womens teams are scheduled to be selected by 10th February 2016 and announced shortly after. Standard non-disclosure of such internal matters applies.

The surest way to ensure automatic selection without any need to apply, is to become NZ Champion during NZ Open 2016. If there are joint NZ Champions due to having equal score, the top by tie-break would be automatically selected. Tie-break criteria was published long ago.
The NZ Champion (by tie-break if necessary) bypasses all selection and application procedures. An incentive for those vying for a place to play in NZ Open 2016.
Also, selection is expected to be heavily influenced by performance during NZ Open 2016. Effectively those who applied but decided to not play in NZ Open 2016 are risking their selection chances.

Somehow NZCF Council have always avoided deciding what the Olympiad teams are supposed to accomplish. It is almost a policy minefield that nobody has the political will to question. Defaulting to selecting the strongest players is pointless IMHO. NZL is bound to keep slipping down the standings anyway. Perhaps players need to be selected based on something like title/norm potential or the ability to assist teammates obtain title/norm. Obviously any definite goals to accomplish is difficult to implement since it makes it possible to measure with certainty whether the teams succeeded or failed.

jammo
16-12-2015, 11:12 PM
It is the NZCF Council that decided not to reveal who had applied.
There are various reasons for not revealing and nobody supplied reasons to reveal. Could be said that nobody thought it necessary to reveal since all applicants have already had their application acknowledged. Exactly who is selected would be known shortly anyway.
Basically, it was not viewed as an issue since the Open and Womens teams are scheduled to be selected by 10th February 2016 and announced shortly after. Standard non-disclosure of such internal matters applies.

The surest way to ensure automatic selection without any need to apply, is to become NZ Champion during NZ Open 2016. If there are joint NZ Champions due to having equal score, the top by tie-break would be automatically selected. Tie-break criteria was published long ago.
The NZ Champion (by tie-break if necessary) bypasses all selection and application procedures. An incentive for those vying for a place to play in NZ Open 2016.
Also, selection is expected to be heavily influenced by performance during NZ Open 2016. Effectively those who applied but decided to not play in NZ Open 2016 are risking their selection chances.

Somehow NZCF Council have always avoided deciding what the Olympiad teams are supposed to accomplish. It is almost a policy minefield that nobody has the political will to question. Defaulting to selecting the strongest players is pointless IMHO. NZL is bound to keep slipping down the standings anyway. Perhaps players need to be selected based on something like title/norm potential or the ability to assist teammates obtain title/norm. Obviously any definite goals to accomplish is difficult to implement since it makes it possible to measure with certainty whether the teams succeeded or failed.


Forgive me, but you seem to be very good at supplying information that is peripheral to the issue. What people want to know is why are Olympiad applicants not revealed in NZ?
The most you tell us is that there are "various reasons." If you wanted to answer the question you should have told us what those reasons are.

"Nobody supplied reasons to reveal". You are not related to Gary Wastell per chance? My view is that revealing the names of Olympiad team applicants creates interest in the team and the selection which of course is a good thing if you are seeking to raise funds by public appeal to send the team overseas. Happy if you have a different view.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2015, 06:57 AM
Forgive me, but you seem to be very good at supplying information that is peripheral to the issue. What people want to know is why are Olympiad applicants not revealed in NZ?
The most you tell us is that there are "various reasons." If you wanted to answer the question you should have told us what those reasons are.

"Nobody supplied reasons to reveal". You are not related to Gary Wastell per chance? My view is that revealing the names of Olympiad team applicants creates interest in the team and the selection which of course is a good thing if you are seeking to raise funds by public appeal to send the team overseas. Happy if you have a different view.

I must agree with Jammo on this one.

Also, it would be good for NZ to make up its mind as Australia has done about what it wants its Olympic teams to achieve. It will make selection more transparent, and it would also be something to tell potential donors.

Keong Ang
17-12-2015, 10:48 AM
Forgive me, but you seem to be very good at supplying information that is peripheral to the issue. What people want to know is why are Olympiad applicants not revealed in NZ?
The most you tell us is that there are "various reasons." If you wanted to answer the question you should have told us what those reasons are.

"Nobody supplied reasons to reveal". You are not related to Gary Wastell per chance? My view is that revealing the names of Olympiad team applicants creates interest in the team and the selection which of course is a good thing if you are seeking to raise funds by public appeal to send the team overseas. Happy if you have a different view.
The reason more information cannot be supplied was stated in my original message. "Standard non-disclosure of such internal matters applies."
Not going to break NZCF Council protocols, especially in my last 2 weeks in it!

At present the only thing that can be revealed is that NZCF Council decided to not reveal anything. No names, no numbers, no reasons. A blanket suppression of information decision.
I'm not the only council member who is uncomfortable with this temporary lack of transparency. However the answers to the questions were minuted and form part of the official record. The curious can find out for themselves in future.

I hate being gagged, and my posting on ChessChat even got included in the past as revealing too much about internal business.

Ian Rout
17-12-2015, 11:34 AM
NZCF may have been concerned that marginal applicants may have feared looking egotistical if it turned out that all the top players applied, and thus not applying when in fact they would have been one of the top five. Or perhaps that applicants would prefer not to be the target of anonymous ratbags on bulletin boards.

How real those concerns are is open to question, and as we see in Australia there are strong arguments the other way, especially the promotion of genuine interest. However it's a bit late to complain about it.

jammo
17-12-2015, 12:47 PM
The reason more information cannot be supplied was stated in my original message. "Standard non-disclosure of such internal matters applies."
Not going to break NZCF Council protocols, especially in my last 2 weeks in it!

At present the only thing that can be revealed is that NZCF Council decided to not reveal anything. No names, no numbers, no reasons. A blanket suppression of information decision.
I'm not the only council member who is uncomfortable with this temporary lack of transparency. However the answers to the questions were minuted and form part of the official record. The curious can find out for themselves in future.

I hate being gagged, and my posting on ChessChat even got included in the past as revealing too much about internal business.

Thanks for your reply. I struggle to understand that applicant information cannot be disclosed because "Standard non-disclosure of such internal matters applies." Are you saying that, even if it wished to do so the NZ Council is prevented from disclosing such information? Is there something in your constitution for example that prevents disclosure?

jammo
17-12-2015, 12:55 PM
NZCF may have been concerned that marginal applicants may have feared looking egotistical if it turned out that all the top players applied, and thus not applying when in fact they would have been one of the top five. Or perhaps that applicants would prefer not to be the target of anonymous ratbags on bulletin boards.

How real those concerns are is open to question, and as we see in Australia there are strong arguments the other way, especially the promotion of genuine interest. However it's a bit late to complain about it.


In my view we want all the possible candidates for an Olympiad team to apply. Those who may miss out if all the top players apply presumably do so either in the hope that not all do apply or out of interest to see how they are ranked by the selectors. To think that someone would not apply for fear of being "egotistical" is a most improbable outcome in my view.

It may well be too late to complain in relation to the current selections but that shouldn't prevent people from debating the merits of the issue. We must supply something for those anonymous ratbags of whom you speak to talk about.

Scott Wastney
17-12-2015, 02:07 PM
"Defaulting to selecting the strongest players is pointless"

Really? I thought this was the point of a national team? Do you propose selecting weaker players in the hope they later improve? Then when they become the strongest players, replace them and keep repeating the process until we get good enough to win the Olympiad? Or pick all untitled players in the aim of picking up as many titles, then replace then with the next batch of untitled players. I think you have the mistaken belief that the councils and selectors have the power to improve the level of NZ chess simply by being clever with their selection policy. The NZCF can do many things to improve the level of chess in NZ, but selection policies although it costs NZCF nothing, isn't in itself doing anything - just pretending to. If the NZCF put forward the policy "We do not want to select the strongest players", or "we don't want to select titled players". If the level of NZ chess is so low, then surely these talented players waiting in the wings have such an easy task taking over the no-hopers already at the top. So why not just let them do just that so they feel they earn their spot on merit?

"Also, selection is expected to be heavily influenced by performance during NZ Open 2016".

But isn't this a pointless default as well? Maybe the best method is everyone that enters the NZ Open goes into a lottery for an Olympiad place (sort of like it is for the NZ title!). In the future I see the ChessChat people debating "no, no...he is too high rated" or "he already has an IM title, so don't waste a spot on him".

Anyway, my two cents worth...

Rincewind
17-12-2015, 03:04 PM
I agree with Scott and picking the strongest team is not a pointless default but the only way to approach national selection. I find it weird if it is true that the NZCF has no instructions to selectors that specify some other aim than picking the strongest team.

Offering an automatic spot to the highest placed NZer in the NZ Open is a corruption of the process since what is happening there is that a spot on the national team is donated by the selection process to the organisers of the NZ Open as a means to publicise their tournament. The NZ Open gets a boost and the NZ Olympiad team selectors have one less spot to allocated based on what they perceive as merit. Provided enough strong NZers compete the cost to the Olympiad team is minimised but I think it is worthwhile recognising what is going on. It is more about getting more locals to play in the NZ Open then it is about picking the strongest team for the Olympiad.

MichaelBaron
17-12-2015, 06:57 PM
I agree with Scott and picking the strongest team is not a pointless default but the only way to approach national selection. I find it weird if it is true that the NZCF has no instructions to selectors that specify some other aim than picking the strongest team.

Offering an automatic spot to the highest placed NZer in the NZ Open is a corruption of the process since what is happening there is that a spot on the national team is donated by the selection process to the organisers of the NZ Open as a means to publicise their tournament. The NZ Open gets a boost and the NZ Olympiad team selectors have one less spot to allocated based on what they perceive as merit. Provided enough strong NZers compete the cost to the Olympiad team is minimised but I think it is worthwhile recognising what is going on. It is more about getting more locals to play in the NZ Open then it is about picking the strongest team for the Olympiad.

And selecting a team other than that ''strongest'' team will inevitably result in accusations of ''favouritism''

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2015, 07:33 PM
I agree with Scott and picking the strongest team is not a pointless default but the only way to approach national selection. I find it weird if it is true that the NZCF has no instructions to selectors that specify some other aim than picking the strongest team.

I had a look at what they do have and their selections section from the Handbook is as follows:
http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/NZCFdocs/International.pdf


2.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS
(Adopted by the NZCF annual general meeting, 4 January 1991)
2.1.1 For the selection of any national representative team the Council shall
appoint a panel of three selectors. For the purpose of this rule the provisions
of NZCF Constitution paragraph 3.4.1 shall not apply.
2.1.2 The selection panel shall give pre-eminent weight to the results of the most
recent appropriate national championship and players’ ratings during the
previous year but may, if necessary, consider additional criteria.
Notes:
a) Setting aside NZCF Constitution paragraph 3.4.1 does not disqualify the
President from being appointed to the selection panel.
b) The word “appropriate” in rule 2.1.2 above acknowledges that other than
open teams may require selection, e.g., women or juniors.
c) The use of “additional criteria” may be necessary, for example, if the two
primary criteria fail to adequately differentiate between several contenders
for the last one or two places in a team.

This is quite mysterious, since while it implies that the clearly strongest players as judged on rating and national champs performance are to be picked, it doesn't make it clear whether the "additional criteria" that may be used are strictly strength-related or can concern other objectives such as title-chasing, development, team harmony (etc).

Of course there may be more to it in the form of policy decisions.

Keong Ang
17-12-2015, 07:36 PM
Thanks for your reply. I struggle to understand that applicant information cannot be disclosed because "Standard non-disclosure of such internal matters applies." Are you saying that, even if it wished to do so the NZ Council is prevented from disclosing such information? Is there something in your constitution for example that prevents disclosure?
The NZCF Council decided to not disclose such information in this case.
Basically it could have decided to disclose if it wished to but this time round it wished to keep things secret.

Keong Ang
17-12-2015, 08:03 PM
"Defaulting to selecting the strongest players is pointless"

Really? I thought this was the point of a national team? Do you propose selecting weaker players in the hope they later improve? Then when they become the strongest players, replace them and keep repeating the process until we get good enough to win the Olympiad? Or pick all untitled players in the aim of picking up as many titles, then replace then with the next batch of untitled players. I think you have the mistaken belief that the councils and selectors have the power to improve the level of NZ chess simply by being clever with their selection policy. The NZCF can do many things to improve the level of chess in NZ, but selection policies although it costs NZCF nothing, isn't in itself doing anything - just pretending to. If the NZCF put forward the policy "We do not want to select the strongest players", or "we don't want to select titled players". If the level of NZ chess is so low, then surely these talented players waiting in the wings have such an easy task taking over the no-hopers already at the top. So why not just let them do just that so they feel they earn their spot on merit?

"Also, selection is expected to be heavily influenced by performance during NZ Open 2016".

But isn't this a pointless default as well? Maybe the best method is everyone that enters the NZ Open goes into a lottery for an Olympiad place (sort of like it is for the NZ title!). In the future I see the ChessChat people debating "no, no...he is too high rated" or "he already has an IM title, so don't waste a spot on him".

Anyway, my two cents worth...
When sitting at the NZCF Council meeting, I could have picked the 5 players for the Open team and 5 players in the Women's team from the numerous applicants in less than a minute. Especially when it is a simple case of picking the strongest players. There would be no need for selectors etc.

However there is a growing camp that challenges this idea of sending the strongest possible team. Mainly due to the thought that even a team with the best NZL players would just keep dropping down the standings anyway. Linked to accepting the thought that the level of chess in NZ is so low. So the goal is shifted to making use of the Olympiad to obtain maximum benefit for chess in NZ domestically. Broadly defined as keeping it as a reward for those who are active local chess players. As usual with such lobby groups, I don't think they have thought through the ramifications.

It is already reflected in the automatic place to the NZ Champion (by tiebreak if necessary) through NZ Open 2016. The highest official NZCF tournament counts ahead of everything else. It also fits in with the idea that the NZ Champion is deemed strong enough to represent NZ.

Rincewind
17-12-2015, 08:07 PM
This is quite mysterious, since while it implies that the clearly strongest players as judged on rating and national champs performance are to be picked, it doesn't make it clear whether the "additional criteria" that may be used are strictly strength-related or can concern other objectives such as title-chasing, development, team harmony (etc).

Indeed the additional criteria seem to only apply as a tie-breaking mechanism for the last one or two spots in the team. But in the absence of other information it would seem the selection panel is free to decide post hoc what constitutes these additional criteria.

Keong Ang
17-12-2015, 09:14 PM
I agree with Scott and picking the strongest team is not a pointless default but the only way to approach national selection. I find it weird if it is true that the NZCF has no instructions to selectors that specify some other aim than picking the strongest team.
In the past NZCF had previously given selectors instructions on criteria that prevent picking only the strongest players. It is when no instructions are given that selectors default to picking the strongest team.
Sometimes it was not NZCF that gave the instructions, but the applicants! :eek:
eg. if X is going to be in the team, selection would be declined (x4) type applications. Effectively meaning a team cannot be formed unless X was not selected.
Thankfully this is not going to be a problem now.


Offering an automatic spot to the highest placed NZer in the NZ Open is a corruption of the process since what is happening there is that a spot on the national team is donated by the selection process to the organisers of the NZ Open as a means to publicise their tournament. The NZ Open gets a boost and the NZ Olympiad team selectors have one less spot to allocated based on what they perceive as merit. Provided enough strong NZers compete the cost to the Olympiad team is minimised but I think it is worthwhile recognising what is going on. It is more about getting more locals to play in the NZ Open then it is about picking the strongest team for the Olympiad.
The "NZCF president-elect" is the organiser of the NZ Open and it is the highest official tournament of the NZCF. Taking advantage of the Olympiad to coerce applicants to play should have been blatantly obvious since the NZ Open was publicised in early 2015...

Keong Ang
17-12-2015, 10:31 PM
Indeed the additional criteria seem to only apply as a tie-breaking mechanism for the last one or two spots in the team. But in the absence of other information it would seem the selection panel is free to decide post hoc what constitutes these additional criteria.
Actually the selectors "recommend" and the NZCF Council decides. Decision making power had not been delegated to the selectors. Of course it is convenient to simply agree with the selectors.
Makes for a system of incredible flexibility with little accountability.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2015, 02:29 AM
"Defaulting to selecting the strongest players is pointless"

Really? I thought this was the point of a national team? Do you propose selecting weaker players in the hope they later improve? Then when they become the strongest players, replace them and keep repeating the process until we get good enough to win the Olympiad? Or pick all untitled players in the aim of picking up as many titles, then replace then with the next batch of untitled players. I think you have the mistaken belief that the councils and selectors have the power to improve the level of NZ chess simply by being clever with their selection policy. The NZCF can do many things to improve the level of chess in NZ, but selection policies although it costs NZCF nothing, isn't in itself doing anything - just pretending to. If the NZCF put forward the policy "We do not want to select the strongest players", or "we don't want to select titled players".
You're right above of course, with some good reductio ad absurdum arguments against the apparent current policy.

Australia on the other hand is open about the requirement to select the strongest team, which is one reason there is transparency and widespread acceptance of the fairness of the team selections.


If the level of NZ chess is so low, then surely these talented players waiting in the wings have such an easy task taking over the no-hopers already at the top. So why not just let them do just that so they feel they earn their spot on merit?
That's one thing I couldn't understand about criticism of the last team's selection. If other players would have been better, how come they have not even come close to proving it over the board against those who were selected?


"Also, selection is expected to be heavily influenced by performance during NZ Open 2016".

But isn't this a pointless default as well? Maybe the best method is everyone that enters the NZ Open goes into a lottery for an Olympiad place (sort of like it is for the NZ title!).
Well, it would look odd if the current national champion were not on the national team. Chess-political considerations had that result in the widely panned selection for the 1990 team.


In the future I see the ChessChat people debating "no, no...he is too high rated" or "he already has an IM title, so don't waste a spot on him".
Good grief. Never mind the further loss of credibility as the Kiwi team slips lower on the Olympic ranking than it would need to if the strongest were selected.

Anyway, my two cents worth...

You're too modest, as someone ranked #4 in the current FIDE list (http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=nzl) and #5 in the latest NZCF list (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?12112-NZCF-Ratings&p=402870&viewfull=1#post402870). If you applied and were not selected, there would be something very wrong.

Desmond
19-12-2015, 02:55 PM
Actually the selectors "recommend" and the NZCF Council decides. Decision making power had not been delegated to the selectors. Of course it is convenient to simply agree with the selectors.
Makes for a system of incredible flexibility with little accountability.Maybe they should be called recommenders.

ER
19-12-2015, 07:38 PM
Actually the selectors "recommend" and the NZCF Council decides. Decision making power had not been delegated to the selectors. Of course it is convenient to simply agree with the selectors.
Makes for a system of incredible flexibility with little accountability.

Nice to see you healthy, happy and smiling at the MCC Keong. Best wishes for Christmas and new year for you and family! :)

Craig_Hall
20-12-2015, 08:14 AM
Releasing names of applicants would arguably be a breach of the Privacy Act, so that's a good reason not to disclose names other than the team when selected. If individuals want to disclose that they have applied, so be it, but NZCF probably shouldn't.

Selection criteria are set by Council with much input from AGMs. Strength is important, but the #1 criterion, even if it's never considered as such, is the ability to pay for the trip.

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2015, 11:10 AM
Releasing names of applicants would arguably be a breach of the Privacy Act, so that's a good reason not to disclose names other than the team when selected. If individuals want to disclose that they have applied, so be it, but NZCF probably shouldn't.

On a quick reading of the NZ Privacy Act this could very well be true. However, if true, it is easily avoided by making a condition of application that an applicant consents to having the fact that they have applied published.

The NZ Privacy Act seems rather more encompassing than the Australian one, which does not apply to the vast majority of clubs and non-profits. Until 2013 the ACF by-laws contained a requirement that the provisional selections (ie prior to possible appeals) be published in every medium in which a call for applications was made. This has been removed, so that in theory the ACF might now officially publish only the selected players, though in 2014 the full results were published after the resolution of all appeals, and the names of all applicants were published following the close of applications.

In the past the ACF has also sometimes published the candidates' supporting statements and list of results supplied by candidates to the selectors for public scrutiny and comment. This is no longer done mainly for logistic reasons. We did have a few curly moments with this system, including one in which a candidate wanted their supporting statement to be confidential and one in which a candidate's supporting statement was clearly defamatory.

slyall
20-12-2015, 12:15 PM
On a quick reading of the NZ Privacy Act this could very well be true. However, if true, it is easily avoided by making a condition of application that an applicant consents to having the fact that they have applied published.


This isn't the case with NZ. Wrt pushing the actual application the current application form states:

The completed form will remain confidential to the NZCF selection panel and Olympiad 2016 organising committee

so it definitely won't be happening this year.

jammo
20-12-2015, 12:43 PM
This isn't the case with NZ. Wrt pushing the actual application the current application form states:

The completed form will remain confidential to the NZCF selection panel and Olympiad 2016 organising committee

so it definitely won't be happening this year.

So how is the NZCA Council allowed to see who has applied?

CivicChessMan
21-12-2015, 10:12 AM
Strength is important, but the #1 criterion, even if it's never considered as such, is the ability to pay for the trip.And that price, is about 2400 NZD at the moment.

ChrisBurns
21-12-2015, 01:32 PM
Is Baku offering any financial help like Tromso did in 2014 to teams that are far away like NZ and Australia.

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2015, 01:35 PM
Is Baku offering any financial help like Tromso did in 2014 to teams that are far away like NZ and Australia.

Did NZ get any of that in the end? Australia applied but we didn't get any, probably because we're in too high a development band.

ChrisBurns
21-12-2015, 01:49 PM
Did NZ get any of that in the end? Australia applied but we didn't get any, probably because we're in too high a development band.
Don't know, probably another piece of top secret information.

heligan
21-12-2015, 02:00 PM
As yet we don't know the full details for the Baku Olympiad - I'm keeping things updated on our Olympiad page at http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/Olympiad2016/olympiad2016.html.
As far as I am aware, there is no help for players' travel expenses this time, though the FIDE notice suggests some help for FIDE delegates.
Yes, NZ got money last time - the amounts were published on the Tromso Olympiad website so they should be available for public scrutiny! However, the stated amount was only paid per player, and I don't think I'd be breaking any vow of silence by saying we split the total between all official members of the delegation.

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2015, 02:02 PM
As far as I am aware, there is no help for players' travel expenses this time, though the FIDE notice suggests some help for FIDE delegates.

Yes, supposedly they're going to pay delegate airfares:

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/9292-inspection-trip-of-the-fide-delegation-to-baku.html

Craig_Hall
21-12-2015, 04:14 PM
Don't know, probably another piece of top secret information.

NZCF annual financial statements are public information - they can be downloaded from the Charities Register once audited and accepted at AGM.

While people like to know who applied for the teams, not all players want it to be public knowledge, especially if they aren't selected, and it avoids selectioneering by the candidates. Not exactly in the public interest to not release the information, but there are legitimate reasons for the confidentiality.

ChrisBurns
22-12-2015, 01:07 AM
NZCF annual financial statements are public information - they can be downloaded from the Charities Register once audited and accepted at AGM.

While people like to know who applied for the teams, not all players want it to be public knowledge, especially if they aren't selected, and it avoids selectioneering by the candidates. Not exactly in the public interest to not release the information, but there are legitimate reasons for the confidentiality.

And that's why even the numbers applying is officially kept secret too. Because numbers deserve their privacy too.

ChrisBurns
11-02-2016, 08:29 PM
Have the teams been selected now?

jammo
11-02-2016, 10:16 PM
Have the teams been selected now?

I'm sorry but this information is confidential, out of respect to those applicants who missed selection. It will be released at the conclusion of the Olympiad.

Tony Dowden
12-02-2016, 06:55 AM
Funny guy, Jammo

Craig_Hall
13-02-2016, 06:16 PM
Have the teams been selected now?

Not yet - teams will be announced when they are.

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2016, 09:00 PM
FIDE have just announced that the Olympiad dates have changed.

New dates are now 1st September - 14th September.

MichaelBaron
17-02-2016, 11:26 AM
FIDE have just announced that the Olympiad dates have changed.

New dates are now 1st September - 14th September.

And it now clashes with Spriengfield Cup where 3 top boards for the USA team were scheduled to participate :)

lost
17-02-2016, 12:05 PM
And it now clashes with Spriengfield Cup where 3 top boards for the USA team were scheduled to participate :)

.......and it was due to clash with the World Youth in Khanty Mansiysk. World Youth is now only Under 14/16/18 for open and girls but dates will be changed though.

lost

MichaelBaron
17-02-2016, 12:47 PM
.......and it was due to clash with the World Youth in Khanty Mansiysk. World Youth is now only Under 14/16/18 for open and girls but dates will be changed though.

lost

I assume both events (World Youth and Olympiad) have been scheduled by FIDE so the clash could have been avoided in the first place! Many tournament organizers worldwide plan their events not to clash with the Olympiad. Non-Professional chess players (not all chess players are chess bums) are preparing to take time off work during a particular time slot making all the necessary arrangements...and then then the Olympiad gets rescheduled...

Thebes
17-02-2016, 02:09 PM
Non-Professional chess players (not all chess players are chess bums) are preparing to take time off work during a particular time

Almost got through a post without insulting someone,

I think Caruana and Wesley will chose the olympiad due to the fact it was one of the reasons they were allowed to change federation, very strong olympiad team!

MichaelBaron
17-02-2016, 03:03 PM
Almost got through a post without insulting someone,

I think Caruana and Wesley will chose the olympiad due to the fact it was one of the reasons they were allowed to change federation, very strong olympiad team!

The Springfield Cup organizers already issued a statement that they will now move dates for their event to avoid the clash.

Thebes
17-02-2016, 05:14 PM
Are you talking about the Sinquefield cup?

jammo
17-02-2016, 10:46 PM
Are you talking about the Sinquefield cup?

Don't worry about it Johnston. Near enough is always good enough for the Baron.

Redmond Barry
18-02-2016, 01:12 AM
Are you talking about the Sinquefield cup?
.
No, hes clearly talking about the world famous Springfield Cup.

This years field includes :

GM Barney Gumble
GM Monty Burns
IM Dr Julius Hibbert
IM Hershel Krustofski
FM Sideshow Bob
FM Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

plus highly rated juniors -

Ralph Wiggins and Todd Flanders.

Ian Rout
18-02-2016, 10:25 AM
We might recall that FIDE introduced rules like drug testing and zero default time in order to demonstrate to bodies such as the OIC that they operate with the same level of professionalism as real sports. They may have just gone a little backwards in that regard.

MichaelBaron
18-02-2016, 11:27 AM
We might recall that FIDE introduced rules like drug testing and zero default time in order to demonstrate to bodies such as the OIC that they operate with the same level of professionalism as real sports. They may have just gone a little backwards in that regard.

This is nothing compared to FIDE announcing that during the Candidates matches (while still playing their games!!!) participants are expected to provide live commentary!

Desmond
18-02-2016, 11:39 AM
This is nothing compared to FIDE announcing that during the Candidates matches (while still playing their games!!!) participants are expected to provide live commentary!Maybe the players can be mic'ed up so they can add comments from at the board, like in the T20.

Qbert
18-02-2016, 01:22 PM
Maybe the players can be mic'ed up so they can add comments from at the board, like in the T20.

Yeah - I'd love to hear a SuperGM sledging contest :)

ER
18-02-2016, 03:18 PM
Yeah - I'd love to hear a SuperGM sledging contest :)

or quietly abusing the arbiter!
OK now may I suggest a thread split?
I mean I know we are in arch enemy number two territory, however hijacking (and disorientating) the Kiwi Olympic Team thread
in such a silly way it just ain't cricket! :)

heligan
20-02-2016, 06:01 AM
The New Zealand Chess Federation is pleased to announce the following teams in board order for the 2016 Chess Olympiad in Baku, Azerbaijan:
Open Team
1. FM Alexei Kulashko
2. FM Scott Wastney
3. FM Luke Li
4. IM Russell Dive
5. FM Ben Hague
Women's Team
1. CM Helen Milligan
2. WCM Jasmine Zhang
3. Joy Qin
4. Kate Song
5. Nadia Braganza

The quality of the applicants for the 2016 Olympiad has been very high with a number of new faces which is exciting for NZ chess. NZCF is pleased to be able to enter strong teams in both events. To those selected best wishes with your chess preparation and travel organisation, particularly those taking part in their first Olympiad. The selection of Team Captains and non-travelling Reserves will be announced by NZCF at a later date.

Kaitlin
20-02-2016, 06:17 AM
Maybe the players can be mic'ed up so they can add comments from at the board, like in the T20.

.. or they could tweet :) .... though that would involve a major rule change

jammo
20-02-2016, 01:39 PM
The New Zealand Chess Federation is pleased to announce the following teams in board order for the 2016 Chess Olympiad in Baku, Azerbaijan:
Open Team
1. FM Alexei Kulashko
2. FM Scott Wastney
3. FM Luke Li
4. IM Russell Dive
5. FM Ben Hague
Women's Team
1. CM Helen Milligan
2. WCM Jasmine Zhang
3. Joy Qin
4. Kate Song
5. Nadia Braganza

The quality of the applicants for the 2016 Olympiad has been very high with a number of new faces which is exciting for NZ chess. NZCF is pleased to be able to enter strong teams in both events. To those selected best wishes with your chess preparation and travel organisation, particularly those taking part in their first Olympiad. The selection of Team Captains and non-travelling Reserves will be announced by NZCF at a later date.

Interesting to hear the the applicants for the 2016 Olympiad included a "number of new faces". I wonder who they were. Li, Dive and Hague were all in the 2014 Olympiad team and on the top two boards Kulashko and Wastney are old FMs who I'm sure would not be unknown to New Zealand Chess. Glad to hear that the NZ Chess Federation considers the above to be a "strong team" ... strong in comparison to what I wonder? Last Olympiad the team had 3 IMs and in the past I seem to remember players like Chandler and Sarapu who were quite strong may have been in the team. I'm a little surprised that Luke Li wasn't ranked higher after his strong performance in the Australian Championships and, being a young player, he at least seems to be improving. Perhaps living in Australia counted against him.

Oh well, I guess the mysteries of the NZ Olympiad selection process will have to remain just that ... a mystery.

slyall
20-02-2016, 06:11 PM
Oh well, I guess the mysteries of the NZ Olympiad selection process will have to remain just that ... a mystery.

Well apart from Helen I believe all the Women's team are playing in their first Olympiad. Wastney and Kulasko haven't been in the team since 2002 (which is before when half of the Women's were born).

4 of the players are in the top 5 NZ FIDE ratings while Hague is 2nd in the NZCF (and 8th in FIDE). The only realistic improvement would have been the additional of Wang who (I assume) was not available. Feel free to argue for Croad, Steadman, Ker, Lukey or Garbett over the ones picked but I have no idea who out of these actually applied and I'm sure others will dispute your picks.

The Woman's list suffered from the usual lack of depth and a couple of the top players being unavailable.

jammo
20-02-2016, 07:18 PM
Well apart from Helen I believe all the Women's team are playing in their first Olympiad. Wastney and Kulasko haven't been in the team since 2002 (which is before when half of the Women's were born).

4 of the players are in the top 5 NZ FIDE ratings while Hague is 2nd in the NZCF (and 8th in FIDE). The only realistic improvement would have been the additional of Wang who (I assume) was not available. Feel free to argue for Croad, Steadman, Ker, Lukey or Garbett over the ones picked but I have no idea who out of these actually applied and I'm sure others will dispute your picks.

The Woman's list suffered from the usual lack of depth and a couple of the top players being unavailable.

Hi Slyall. I'm not arguing for anyone ... Im just questioning some of the comments made above about the team. If you are suggesting that Wastney and Kulasko are "new faces" then I can only note that in 1974 Cecil Purdy was a "new face" in the Australian Olympiad team, but having a 68 year-old in the team is perhaps not something to see as a positive.

In passing, I wonder what is the average age of the NZ Olympiad team, compared with, say, Australia. Maybe we should give you Bobby Cheng back? It would be nice to know if you had some young, up and coming players who were close to selection but as the selections are top secret I guess we will never know.

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2016, 12:48 PM
4 of the players are in the top 5 NZ FIDE ratings while Hague is 2nd in the NZCF (and 8th in FIDE). The only realistic improvement would have been the additional of Wang who (I assume) was not available. Feel free to argue for Croad, Steadman, Ker, Lukey or Garbett over the ones picked but I have no idea who out of these actually applied and I'm sure others will dispute your picks.
Seems like a difficult choice. But even if a case can be made for the others, and it can, it's hard to argue that any of those picked was a bad choice.


The Woman's list suffered from the usual lack of depth and a couple of the top players being unavailable.
I guess 15yo Layla Timergazi was unavailable this time, given that she is higher rated NZCF and FIDE than anyone in the women's team?

ChrisBurns
21-02-2016, 06:08 PM
Pity that the selectors choose Li over other players. He has been playing and living in Australia for quite a while now and missing important NZ tournaments. Would have been more rewarding to give that spot to another strong active NZ placed player.

Thebes
21-02-2016, 07:16 PM
I think it'd be a pity to see his spot on the olympiad team dropped due to the fact he chose a career and opportunity to excel in Australia rather than play Chess in NZ
Also after coming off a career high performance at the recent Aus Open, I don't think too many other NZ fans will be disappointed with him being chosen

ChrisBurns
21-02-2016, 08:04 PM
Quite a few NZ players have migrated to overseas which I don't have a problem with. But many of them have also changed their federation to correspond to which country they live in and many players from overseas have come to live and work in NZ and have changed their federation to NZ. I suppose I am of the opinion that to represent NZ you either were born in NZ, or you work and play in NZ, or have an ongoing relationship with NZ. Someone that is born overseas and lives a small fraction of their life in NZ then says goodbye to NZ for all intents and purposes is not a New Zealander. I suppose I am just looking at the bigger picture rather than trying to improve the NZ team performance from okay/ mediocre to slightly better than okay/mediocre.

Ian Rout
21-02-2016, 08:59 PM
I think it unlikely that the selectors made or didn't make any such decision. It's more likely that they have rules on what criteria they can use and don't have an unrestricted option to take what would be a major policy decision.

MichaelBaron
21-02-2016, 09:12 PM
Pity that the selectors choose Li over other players. He has been playing and living in Australia for quite a while now and missing important NZ tournaments. Would have been more rewarding to give that spot to another strong active NZ placed player.

I am happy to know that New Zealand has so many quality players to choose from :) :) :). Already 3 of the 5 players selected are 40+. Would another player be selected (Who would it be? Garbett? Steadman? Lukey? Smith? Noble? - the team would be almost fit for the Team Senior Championships :).

CivicChessMan
22-02-2016, 02:18 AM
.. many players from overseas have come to live and work in NZ and have changed their federation to NZL

Actually, there are only a few players who have switched Federations when they have moved to New Zealand. Unless a player has plans to represent New Zealand then there is not much point in changing federations unless the player wishes to donate a minimum of 250 Euros to FIDE. In recent years, I can only think of four players who have switched federations to NZL: Murray Chandler, Ben Hague, Helen Milligan and junior Raivath Mallela while in the other direction, Igor Bjelobrk, Bobby Cheng, Hamish Shierlaw and Sue Maroroa.

CivicChessMan
22-02-2016, 02:45 AM
Pity that the selectors choose Li over other players. He has been playing and living in Australia for quite a while now and missing important NZ tournaments. Would have been more rewarding to give that spot to another strong active NZ placed player.

Couldn't disagree more with the above statement. Luke Li is a valuable member of the New Zealand team and is benefiting from the tougher competition that is available in Australia. If it's good enough that New Zealand has the Auckland Warriors in the NRL, Wellinton Phoenix in the A-League and the NZ Breakers in NBL then why not a chess player! Unlike the ABs which are selected from home-based players only, chess doesn't have that luxury.

Luke was selected for Tromsų where he scored 4.5 / 9 in his first Olympiad, playing on boards 2 and 3. Luke is currently 6th on the FIDE rating list, 4th if the inactive players are disregarded, behind Wang, Kulashko and Wastney and one place ahead of Dive.

ChrisBurns
22-02-2016, 11:26 AM
Couldn't disagree more with the above statement. Luke Li is a valuable member of the New Zealand team and is benefiting from the tougher competition that is available in Australia. If it's good enough that New Zealand has the Auckland Warriors in the NRL, Wellinton Phoenix in the A-League and the NZ Breakers in NBL then why not a chess player! Unlike the ABs which are selected from home-based players only, chess doesn't have that luxury.

Luke was selected for Tromsų where he scored 4.5 / 9 in his first Olympiad, playing on boards 2 and 3. Luke is currently 6th on the FIDE rating list, 4th if the inactive players are disregarded, behind Wang, Kulashko and Wastney and one place ahead of Dive.

All those teams mentioned play on NZ soil quite regularly.

ChrisBurns
22-02-2016, 11:44 AM
I suppose I don't subscribe to the "Once a Kiwi always a Kiwi" philosophy.

flukey
22-02-2016, 02:15 PM
The thing I find interesting about the men's team is that player strength is so even the board order could be reversed without looking odd!

pax
22-02-2016, 02:48 PM
I suppose I don't subscribe to the "Once a Kiwi always a Kiwi" philosophy.

Good luck developing a GM without them spending significant time overseas..

BenHague
22-02-2016, 03:39 PM
Already 3 of the 5 players selected are 40+.

4 out of 5 I believe. Other way round in the women's.

heligan
22-02-2016, 03:49 PM
Add all the other Women's ages together and it's not far off mine...

Tony Dowden
22-02-2016, 08:10 PM
Quite a few NZ players have migrated to overseas which I don't have a problem with ...
I'm pleased to hear that Chris :)

Tony Dowden
22-02-2016, 09:17 PM
Pity that the selectors choose Li over other players. He has been playing and living in Australia for quite a while now and missing important NZ tournaments. Would have been more rewarding to give that spot to another strong active NZ placed player.
I can't agree Chris. It's Luke's business which flag he wants to play under. He was tremendous in the last Aussie Champs and achieved an IM norm, so missing 'important' NZ events isn't a big deal either. Actually, I think he has an excellent chance of gaining the IM title at the Olympiad.

Ian Rout
23-02-2016, 11:27 AM
It isn't unknown for some sports in some countries to have a policy that players have to play in the domestic competition to be eligible for national selection. Usually, though, the "bigger picture" is not to weaken the national team over a half-baked principle but quite the opposite - that strengthening the domestic competition will feed through to strengthening the national team.

It can work if the carrot/stick is tasty/pointy enough that it will lead to a player playing at home, or failing that if the player who takes their place benefits from the opportunity.

It's doubtful that a place in the NZ team would over-ride the work, education or chess development reasons that otherwise kept a player away - it's not quite the All Blacks. It's also unlikely that a replacement player would gain anything from a single event meeting a relatively weak field on Board 5; they would be better saving their leave and pennies for the Australian Open. There is even a risk that weakening the team will make it unattractive to other top players who really are eligible.

So I'm not surprised that NZ went the way it did, or othat other Kiwis seem to support it. Of course you would in any case have to announce the policy in advance rather than introduce it on the run.

Tony Dowden
25-02-2016, 11:20 PM
It isn't unknown for some sports in some countries to have a policy that players have to play in the domestic competition to be eligible for national selection ...

True enough Ian but not relevant because the NZCF doesn't have such a policy.

And, in response to posts from some other Aussies in this thread, in my view the NZ selectors have always been careful to avoid being ageist too.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2016, 04:24 AM
And, in response to posts from some other Aussies in this thread, in my view the NZ selectors have always been careful to avoid being ageist too.

Definitely. Even if some Kiwis think that we shouldn't have mostly >40 players going and should give younger players the chance, the selectors rightly realize that they do have a chance: all they need to do is overtake the veterans on the rating list. Until then, they are not entitled to be selected.

Vlad
26-02-2016, 06:53 AM
True enough Ian but not relevant because the NZCF doesn't have such a policy.


Are you sure about this? Was not it the reason why Igor Bjelobrk was not selected about 10 years ago? He had a much higher rating than some other participants then.


And, in response to posts from some other Aussies in this thread, in my view the NZ selectors have always been careful to avoid being ageist too.

I would say if Luke plays a match against either Wastey or Kulashko, the expected score is 8:2 or (at best for Luke's opponents) 7:3.

I am about the same age (a few years younger), have a similar rating (used to be rated 70 points higher, which means if I really wanted I could have gained some of them back). When I play against Anton - the usual score I get nowdays is one draw out of 10 blitz games. So I hope it gives some idea how competitive 40+ are against youngsters.:lol:

In my opinion, the NZ selectors are being ageist, as they are relying too much on FIDE ratings and placing a much stronger player on board 3.

Ian Rout
26-02-2016, 07:57 AM
True enough Ian but not relevant because the NZCF doesn't have such a policy.Yes, that's true. The relevance is that it was in effect what had been advocated by another poster so as an intro I was acknowledging that it isn't unknown (in other contexts).

On the question of "ageism" my reading is that the selectors have done a little board stack based on experience - they are relying on the experienced players to hold the line on the top boards and Luke Li to clean up lower down. There is no rule against this and many countries do a variant of it.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2016, 08:04 AM
I would say if Luke plays a match against either Wastey or Kulashko, the expected score is 8:2 or (at best for Luke's opponents) 7:3.
Is there any basis for this? The FIDE ratings are supposed to indicate predicted score, and they indicate about 5:5. To score 80% against those others, Li would need to be about 2600. The selectors must surely rely on something objective like ratings rather than a gut feeling that the younger player is underrated.


I am about the same age (a few years younger), have a similar rating (used to be rated 70 points higher, which means if I really wanted I could have gained some of them back). When I play against Anton - the usual score I get nowdays is one draw out of 10 blitz games. So I hope it gives some idea how competitive 40+ are against youngsters.:lol:
Blitz is not standard.


In my opinion, the NZ selectors are being ageist, as they are relying too much on FIDE ratings and placing a much stronger player on board 3.
What else should they rely on? The NZ list would be unfair to Luke, because he hasn't played much in NZ recently. But then, the Aussie list doesn't include many games by Kulashko (2331x) or Wastney (2255??), but even Li's ACF rating of 2359!! doesn't give him an 8:2 edge.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2016, 08:07 AM
On the question of "ageism" my reading is that the selectors have done a little board stack based on experience - they are relying on the experienced players to hold the line on the top boards and Luke Li to clean up lower down.
What is the evidence for this? It looks like they went by FIDE rating order for the first four, and Ben Hague got the 5th board because his NZCF rating is second only to Wang Puchen's.

Ian Rout
26-02-2016, 08:41 AM
What is the evidence for this? It looks like they went by FIDE rating order for the first four, and Ben Hague got the 5th board because his NZCF rating is second only to Wang Puchen's.If you mean the evidence that it is my reading of it then the evidence is that I said it.

If you mean the evidence that my reading is correct, then the evidence is indirect and lies in it being a sensible strategy consistent with the outcome. Note that I am not being critical, quite the opposite - it's a team event and you organise your team to get the best result, aiming to win where you can and draw where you have to. Simply putting players in strict rating order is generally the way to get a second-best result.

Vlad
26-02-2016, 09:21 AM
What else should they rely on? The NZ list would be unfair to Luke, because he hasn't played much in NZ recently. But then, the Aussie list doesn't include many games by Kulashko (2331x) or Wastney (2255??), but even Li's ACF rating of 2359!! doesn't give him an 8:2 edge.

You obviously are not familiar with how Aussies make their selections. FIDE rating is just one point (a single value of a function). Very important is to look at the derivatives. What are the best performances a particular player has recently achieved? What are the results against 2400+ as this is the expected rating of opponents in the Olympiad?

I have read many interviews of prominent Russian coaches. It is very common for them to say that rating by itself is not enough. One needs to look at the recent improvements. If one player is improving while others at best stay the same - the difference in a few points is dominated by the fact that K factor is not high enough and FIDE rating is not responsive enough.

Another example is Vladimir Kramnik who at 17 was not a GM but was selected to represent Soviet Union in the Olympiad and achieved the best result among his teammates. Also example of Wei Yi from the last Olympiad comes to mind.

Of course the real question is what NZ chess want to achieve. One thing is to select a team to achieve the best result. The other thing is to be fair to mates who are contributing to NZ chess, etc.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2016, 01:18 AM
You obviously are not familiar with how Aussies make their selections. FIDE rating is just one point (a single value of a function). Very important is to look at the derivatives. What are the best performances a particular player has recently achieved? What are the results against 2400+ as this is the expected rating of opponents in the Olympiad?
Actually, while I may not be very familiar, on the ChessChat polls for Olympic pics, mine are identical or almost identical to those who were actually selected, and also match very closely with Pax's picks although we can't normally agree on the colour of an orange. This suggests a certain transparency and objectivity on the part of the selection.

Anyway, a rating if it means anything at all is supposed to indicate an expected score against a given field of opponents.


I have read many interviews of prominent Russian coaches. It is very common for them to say that rating by itself is not enough. One needs to look at the recent improvements. If one player is improving while others at best stay the same - the difference in a few points is dominated by the fact that K factor is not high enough and FIDE rating is not responsive enough.
OK, and Luke Li is in the team instead of other strong contenders like Ker or Steadman for example (I don't know if they applied though). But recent high scores may not be enough either. They could be a flash in the pan.


Of course the real question is what NZ chess want to achieve. One thing is to select a team to achieve the best result. The other thing is to be fair to mates who are contributing to NZ chess, etc.
I don't know what they are trying to achieve. But the Aussie selectors really are supposed to select a team that would achieve the best results. Knowing this objective, it is not surprising that my picks and Pax's are very close to the selectors' picks.

ER
27-02-2016, 07:20 AM
Are we going to have a poll re Selection of Australian Olympic Team at some stage?
It might/might not be of use to our selectors' board.
(I know this is not the right thread, however, the relevant one is locked)!

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2016, 09:53 AM
Are we going to have a poll re Selection of Australian Olympic Team at some stage?
It might/might not be of use to our selectors' board.
(I know this is not the right thread, however, the relevant one is locked)!

It is usual to only start the Australian poll when it is known who has applied, which will not be known until the end of March. Anyone who wants to start a thread re Australian olympiad selections in the meantime is welcome to do so.

Tony Dowden
27-02-2016, 10:07 AM
Are you sure about this? Was not it the reason why Igor Bjelobrk was not selected about 10 years ago? He had a much higher rating than some other participants then ...


Sorry for the belated reply Vlad but I hadn't logged in for a while. My understanding is that Kiwi players who are based overseas are generally expected to keep paying an annual registration fee to NZCF if they want to be considered for selection. Obviously it is great if they manage to play in some of the more important events in NZ but (especially) in the case of juniors (who typically emigrate with parents) it would be to much to expect them to play in NZ when overseas events are as good or (more likely) better. I hope this helps.

Tony Dowden
27-02-2016, 10:15 AM
... On the question of "ageism" my reading is that the selectors have done a little board stack based on experience - they are relying on the experienced players to hold the line on the top boards and Luke Li to clean up lower down. There is no rule against this and many countries do a variant of it.
Having personally seen all of the Open team in action over the last couple of years, I actually agree with the board order and don't feel any 'board stacking' has been implemented. It's a particularly well balanced team with noticeable strength all the way to Board 5 - for instance I would look ridiculous in the team yet I've managed to sneak in a couple of times before. I agree there's a (strong-ish) case for putting Luke on a higher board based on likely future trajectory but he hasn't earned Bd 1 or 2 yet.

ER
27-02-2016, 01:42 PM
It is usual to only start the Australian poll when it is known who has applied, which will not be known until the end of March. Anyone who wants to start a thread re Australian olympiad selections in the meantime is welcome to do so.

Thanks for that, I think it's wiser to start one after applications have been made as you noted above!

MichaelBaron
27-02-2016, 10:41 PM
To sum up...NZ needs to encourage more young people to play chess and to improve fast! :)

ChrisBurns
28-02-2016, 02:33 AM
Sorry for the belated reply Vlad but I hadn't logged in for a while. My understanding is that Kiwi players who are based overseas are generally expected to keep paying an annual registration fee to NZCF if they want to be considered for selection. Obviously it is great if they manage to play in some of the more important events in NZ but (especially) in the case of juniors (who typically emigrate with parents) it would be to much to expect them to play in NZ when overseas events are as good or (more likely) better. I hope this helps.
Currently the NZ registration fee is $20, think it is strange that someone decides to apply but not come up with the $20 on some strange principal if they really wanted the privalige to represent NZ at an international tournament with free food and accommodation. Can't really speculate too much as I don't know the full story. It might have to continuous registration. NZ does hold strong tournaments with many GM's invited to play and also there is the George Trundle event for those that want to chase IM norms too. These events have attracted many Australians looking for strong events. Granted that Australia holds more events but only because it has bigger population and has resident GM's.

ChrisBurns
29-02-2016, 05:07 PM
To sum up...NZ needs to encourage more young people to play chess and to improve fast! :)

Or some of our best players should start having children, and watch this space in 14 years time.

Thebes
29-02-2016, 07:01 PM
Or some of our best players should start having children, and watch this space in 14 years time.

Doesn't quite work like that, look at all the previous world champions kids.

Craig_Hall
01-03-2016, 08:56 PM
Doesn't quite work like that, look at all the previous world champions kids.

Much as I hate to say it, I don't think our current crop of players can really be compared to world champions...

Tony Dowden
01-03-2016, 11:09 PM
To sum up...NZ needs to encourage more young people to play chess and to improve fast! :)

Plenty of young Kiwis play chess but these days fewer keep playing into middle adulthood like many of us did in the 'old' days. Still, if you look again, you'll see half of those selected in the Open and Women teams are actually (very) young.

MichaelBaron
03-03-2016, 05:50 PM
Plenty of young Kiwis play chess but these days fewer keep playing into middle adulthood like many of us did in the 'old' days. Still, if you look again, you'll see half of those selected in the Open and Women teams are actually (very) young.

I think it is the Women's team that features most of these youngsters (Li is the only young player on the Men's team).

heligan
04-05-2016, 12:19 PM
World-class coach for New Zealand Olympiad Teams
NZCF is very pleased to announce that Grandmaster Dejan Bojkov will be the coach for the New Zealand teams. He will be with the teams in Baku, and will also provide some coaching to each player before the event.
GM Bojkov has advanced the careers of many strong players - the name most familiar to us is probably that of the former Women's World Champion, GM Antoaneta Stefanova. He is a lecturer in chess, an author, a journalist, and a very strong and active player. His long experience of training players of all ages throughout the world will be of great benefit to the New Zealand teams.

heligan
23-05-2016, 02:36 PM
Unfortunately, and again as a consequence of the changed dates, there has been another forced withdrawal from the squad. FM Luke Li has had to pull out, and will be replaced by FM Stephen Lukey. We now have:
Open Team
1. FM Alexei Kulashko
2. FM Scott Wastney
3. IM Russell Dive
4. FM Ben Hague
5. FM Stephen Lukey
Women's Team
1. CM Helen Milligan
2. WCM Jasmine Zhang
3. Kate Song
4. Nadia Braganza
5. Eva Lourenco

heligan
17-06-2016, 03:38 PM
Captain/coach for the Women's team

The organisers of the Olympiad have generously allowed countries to bring a Head of Delegation free, in addition to a Captain for each team. This has allowed NZCF to promote Hilton Bennett to Head of Delegation, and employ a captain/coach specifically for the Women's team, leaving GM Bojkov to concentrate on the Open team.
We have been very fortunate to obtain the services of the experienced coach Peter Long, of the KL Chess Academy in Malaysia. Peter has been active for many years as a player, arbiter, organiser, and trainer. His record in developing young chess talent is particularly notable and we hope that our (mostly) young Women's team will benefit from this.

Adamski
17-06-2016, 05:54 PM
World-class coach for New Zealand Olympiad Teams
NZCF is very pleased to announce that Grandmaster Dejan Bojkov will be the coach for the New Zealand teams. He will be with the teams in Baku, and will also provide some coaching to each player before the event.
GM Bojkov has advanced the careers of many strong players - the name most familiar to us is probably that of the former Women's World Champion, GM Antoaneta Stefanova. He is a lecturer in chess, an author, a journalist, and a very strong and active player. His long experience of training players of all ages throughout the world will be of great benefit to the New Zealand teams.
Just saw this. A great coup by NZCF. Top class trainer! And I did note Peter Long's role too.

ER
21-06-2016, 05:02 PM
Just saw this. A great coup by NZCF. Top class trainer! And I did note Peter Long's role too.

Not so sure about the necessity / importance / benefit of this.

Apart from a psychological boost, which I agree, can be a positive factor no much else is left to sing about.

Imagine day after day, the GM no matter how strong, tireless, enthusiastic he/she might be to have to go through 10 games,
analyse them, pinpoint mistakes, suggest improvements etc.

I have witnessed international events o/s where a GM undertakes individual coaching during the tournament.
He/she walks around boards where his/her players perform, taking mental notes, in order to discuss later.
In the end of the day and while both players and coach are dead tired, there's a lot of yawning and sleepy faces galore
in the analysis room!

In my opinion in order for the move to be successful the employment of a team coach/trainer should be made
during the preparation of the team before the event starts and not during.

I hope the Kiwi team under GM Bojkov will be successful and I wish them the best of luck!

Second thoughts. The above was written from a spectator's and/or participant's point of view.
I have never had a personal experience. So an expert's opinion on the matter will be more than welcome!

MichaelBaron
22-06-2016, 03:56 PM
Not so sure about the necessity / importance / benefit of this.

Apart from a psychological boost, which I agree, can be a positive factor no much else is left to sing about.

Imagine day after day, the GM no matter how strong, tireless, enthusiastic he/she might be to have to go through 10 games,
analyse them, pinpoint mistakes, suggest improvements etc.

I have witnessed international events o/s where a GM undertakes individual coaching during the tournament.
He/she walks around boards where his/her players perform, taking mental notes, in order to discuss later.
In the end of the day and while both players and coach are dead tired, there's a lot of yawning and sleepy faces galore
in the analysis room!

In my opinion in order for the move to be successful the employment of a team coach/trainer should be made
during the preparation of the team before the event starts and not during.

I hope the Kiwi team under GM Bojkov will be successful and I wish them the best of luck!

Second thoughts. The above was written from a spectator's and/or participant's point of view.
I have never had a personal experience. So an expert's opinion on the matter will be more than welcome!

1) Preparation is required both before and during the event.
2) working with a coach throughout the event is important not only to achieve good results in that particular event but in order to improve one's chess overall. Also, it teachers the players how to work on their chess.

ER
22-06-2016, 04:09 PM
1) Preparation is required both before and during the event.
2) working with a coach throughout the event is important not only to achieve good results in that particular event but in order to improve one's chess overall. Also, it teachers the players how to work on their chess.

Thanks for the input, but I am more concerned about the practicality of the venture.
How effective can a coach's contribution be if they have to analyse 10 games after the end of each round?


but in order to improve one's chess overall. Also, it teachers the players how to work on their chess

Fine, but we are talking about strong players representing their country here.
Improving and learning during the most important team event of the chess calendar?

IMHO, a good rest, good food and a nice walk around beautiful Baku could be much more
beneficial than spending extra hours (waiting for your turn to discuss your game with the coach)
after a strenuous long match with most likely a tough opponent!

Vlad
22-06-2016, 06:11 PM
You are obviously unfamiliar with the famous tradition Aussies have after each round in the Olympiad. This time it will be particularly exciting as there will be 3 coaches: Ian, Darryal and Manuel.

ER
23-06-2016, 09:03 PM
You are obviously unfamiliar with the famous tradition Aussies have after each round in the Olympiad. This time it will be particularly exciting as there will be 3 coaches: Ian, Darryal and Manuel.

that makes sense for the Aussies! :) but what about the Kiwis? :P

Rahane_S (Axiom)
03-07-2016, 09:20 PM
that makes sense for the Aussies! :) but what about the Kiwis? :P

They have the Haka

Desmond
03-07-2016, 10:01 PM
They have the HakaemJyEa4z2Ec

heligan
15-07-2016, 07:46 AM
Visas for Azerbaijan (15th July 2016)

The organisers of the Olympiad have altered the method of applying for visas. Electronic visas will now be issued. However, it is now critical that the information provided is in a suitable format. ID photos must have a white background. Passport scans must be in colour. Please would all members of the NZ Delegation (players, captains, HoD, Delegate) check the documents they sent to me and replace if necessary - most ID photos that I have do not have a white background, for example...
Further information, as follows, is required urgently from each of you:
Home address with post code
Phone number with country code
Occupation
Have you visited Azerbaijan before (give full details and visa details/number, if so)
Have you ever visited Nagorno-Karabakh.

Send to me: heligan@newzealandchess.co.nz

BenHague
10-08-2016, 09:07 AM
Team lists now out: http://www1.bakuchessolympiad.com/content/53 for the men and http://www1.bakuchessolympiad.com/content/54 for the women.

New Zealand ranked 76th of 180 in the open and 113th of 139 in the women's.

Walden
28-08-2016, 05:19 AM
I guess this means we get what they call the bye in round 1 for the men

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2016, 11:39 AM
Posts moved

Rugby-related posts moved to non-chess.

slyall
03-09-2016, 12:11 PM
FYI the nzchess (https://twitter.com/NZChess) twitter account is hopefully being updated with stuff (by me and others). Ping it/me/us if you have stuff you'd like us to post of link to.

Kaitlin
03-09-2016, 12:59 PM
FYI the nzchess (https://twitter.com/NZChess) twitter account is hopefully being updated with stuff (by me and others). Ping it/me/us if you have stuff you'd like us to post of link to.

That must mean twitters been around for 10 years :)